Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 1,730 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States Anchor | green | “virtually unflagging obligation ... to exercise the jurisdiction given them.” | 493 |
| 2 | Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. | red | “with the balance heavily weighted in favor of the exercise of jurisdiction.” | 299 |
| 3 | Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States | green | “abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule.” | 298 |
| 4 | Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States | green | “the virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given them.” | 280 |
| 5 | Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. | red | “priority should not be measured exclusively by which complaint was filed first, but rather in terms of how much progress has been made in the two actions.” | 203 |
| 6 | McClellan v. Carland | green | “the pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the federal court having jurisdiction.” | 67 |
| 7 | New Beckley Mining Corp. v. International Union, United Mine Workers | green | “suits are parallel if substantially the same parties litigate substantially the same issues in different forums.” | 64 |
| 8 | Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Hudson River-Black River Regulating District | green | “abstention is generally disfavored, and federal courts have a 'virtually unflagging obligation' to exercise their jurisdiction.” | 19 |
| 9 | New Beckley Mining Corp. v. International Union, United Mine Workers | green | “a difference in remedies is a factor counseling denial of a motion to abstain.” | 7 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.